Claiming for £1000 for stress and disappointment
I shall be dealing with the ground two of this appeal, claiming for £ 1000 for stress and disappointment. The fact of the case is that my client, Rupert, spent 10 years as a homeless man, but suddenly, when his life changed he planned to set up a business for selling second hand clothes and other items in order to raise funds for homeless charities. My client Rupert went to Snout-in-Trough Bank (SINTB) to borrow £1,000 for this venture. He showed the manager his business plain and told him how passionate he was about helping homeless people and how important this was for him. Rupert entered into a contract with the bank (SINTB) and they agreed to lend him £1,000, but as my client Rupert was about to hire his collection, the bank manager contracted him and told him that due to difficult economic circumstances the bank was unable to release £1,000.
According to the decision which was decided by high court justice Rumplestiltskin that my client Rupert should not be awarded any sum of money for his stress and disappointment as “this is really restricted to consumer contract" (judgement given by high court).
My first point of Appeal is that my client Rupert should be awarded £1000 for this stress and disappointment which he felt at not having been able to contribute extreme some of the profit to homeless charities and missing his big chance to promote his business and raise much more for the homeless in the future. I would like to join the court attention that “The general rule which court cannot accept that B can expect his peace of mind/enjoyment not to be affected by a breach" but it certainly remains for commercial contract not for those contract which is done by passionate or for helping homeless people.
I would like to join the court attention in the case Hayes v Dodd (1990) 2 All ER 815. The summary of the case is that the plaintiff runs a motor repair business in 1982. He entered into negotiation to purchase a household workshop and yard which had access by mean narrow and inconvenient tunnel from street to at the front of the property and have access at rear of property. He used £65,000 and £ 55,000 loan from bank. After 12 months he closed his business and attempted unsuccessful to sell property as a single unit. He claimed for damage £ 1,500 for each plaintiff for anguish and vexation. It was held that ‘damage for a anguish and vexation arising out of the contract were not a recoverable unless the object of the contract provide peace of mind of freedom from distress and accordingly were not recoverable for anguish and vexation arising out of the breach of a purely commercial contracts’. “It followed that damages can be received in the amount awarded by anguish and vexation and to extend the appeal would be allowed." According to Rupert case he claimed £1,000 for helping homeless not for purely for commercial purposes.
Now I would like the court attention on the case Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth  AC 344 where Defendant had a contract to construct a swimming pool on P’s land. It was contracted that the deep end of the pool should be 7 feet 6 inches but when pool completed the deep was only 6 feet. P claimed £ 21,560 for damages to reconstruct the pool for specified dept. The claim rejected by trial judge but awarded the plaintiff £2,500 for damages in the loss of amenity. He appealed to court of appeal and claimed to award him full sum. House of lord allowed the defendant to appeal on the ground of the expenses required to reconstruct the pool to the specified depth .The judgement of the trial judge (quoted from McA lpine and Panatown). As far as courts are concerned they don’t worried about the way the successful claimant spends his award, common sense will be invoked to prevent the claimant from receiving a “windfall". According to Lord Mustill that ‘there are not two alternative measures of damage... but only one: namely, the loss truly suffered by the promise1.’
My ladyship, According to Ruxley case, it was contracted that deep should be 7 feet 6 inches but they broke the contract and P had been awarded for damages in the loss of amenity. As far as Rupert case is concern the bank was contracted that they will lend my client £1,000, but when he went for the collection, bank didn’t realise the money and broke the contract. I would suggest that as Ruxley awarded for damages so my client should awarded £1,000 for the extreme stress and disappointment that he felt for not been able to contribute some of the profits to homeless charities.
I would like to join the court attention on the case Watts v Morrow  4 All ER 937 Where the plaintiff purchased house for £177,500, the examiner of the defendant prepared the survey in which he stated that the overall house is in good condition but have some minor defects which could be dealt as part of ordinary maintenance and repair. When plaintiff took control of the house he discovered that the examiner didn’t mentioned regarding renewal of the roof, windows and floor boards which need urgent repair. Plaintiff carried out the repaired which cost him £33,961. Plaintiff claimed the amount and the judge found defendant liable for negligence and awarded plaintiff for the repairs and for distress and inconvenient. Bingham LJ stated that “But the rule is not absolute. Where the very object of a contract is to provide pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind or freedom from molestation, damages will be awarded if the fruit of the contract is not provided or if the contrary result is procured instead. If the law did not cater for this exceptional category of case it would be defective. A contract to survey the condition of a house for a prospective purchaser does not, however, fall within this exceptional category".
1. Ibid, p. 277 E.
3. The house was situated near to Gatwick Airport, so this was clearly likely to be issue.
According to Bingham LJ that they allow two categories of case where non-pecuniary losses may be recoverable. The first one is ‘very object’ where it provides pleasure etc includes holidays and wedding photographs2. The second category is where the breach of contract is caused ‘physical inconvenience and discomfort’. In Farley v Skinner  UKHL 49;  4 All ER 801 these two categories are fully reviewed by House of Lord where claimant claimed for damages from a surveyor who reported on house which claimant brought. The instructions had been given to surveyor that he should report any problem with aircraft noise.3 the examiner failed to mention the faults that the house was near to aircraft navigation beacon, where aircraft often ‘stacked’ waiting to land, and specially on weekends the use and enjoyment of the property was affected by noise. According to the decision of the House of Lord, that the there is no argument that surveyor has beached the contract. The county court held that the value of the house is not affected by breach of contract but it was awarded damages £ 10,000 to claimant for non-pecuniary.
However my client Rupert case is “very object" because his main reason is for passion and helping homeless charities and he was sure, that he could sell enough to get back the business on foot for the future. As far as bank is concern, they didn’t realise the money and my client felt into stress and disappointment because he missed a big chance to promote his business for homeless charities in the future, according to that he could get the damages because of the ‘very object’ of the contract.
In the case Diesen v Samson (1971) SLT (Sh Ct) 49 Plaintiff claimed and awarded damages for her distress and disappointment when photographer failed to come over to wedding, for taking photos and leave the wedding couple without a photographic records on a special and important day. However, because of the private consumer plaintiff received the damages rewards, Similar the way as my client Rupert went to SINTB bank for loan which is a private consumer because he did for (personal or individual) enjoyment and for helping homeless people but unfortunately the SINTB bank denied for leading him money due to economic difficulties.
2. See Diesen v Samson 1971 SLT (SLT) 49 (a Scottish case dealing with wedding photography); Heywood v Wellers  QB 446;  1 All ER 300 (solicitor’s failure to take action to protect the plaintiff from ‘molestation’).
3. The house was situated near to Gatwick Airport, so this was clearly likely to be issue.
In order to join the court attention on the cases Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd  1 QB 233,  1 All ER 71 and Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd  3 All ER 92,  1 WLR 1468. In both cases plaintiffs suffered from disappointment during their holidays which they had brought, according to brochures their expectation was too much but when they been to holidays, they disappointed. The courts decided that they could be rewarded damages for disappointment, mental anxiety and distress. It was stated by Lord Denning in the case Jarvis that “damages for mental distress can be recovered in contract, just as damages for shock can be recovered in tort".
According to Jarvis and Jackson as they both brought the tickets for the purpose of enjoyment, whereas my client Rupert went to the bank to get a loan for the purpose of the enjoyment of homeless people similar the way they went for holidays for the purpose of enjoyment.
In conclusion I would argue that my client should be awarded £1,000 on the basis that this was a private consumer contract not a purely commercial contract. This my ladyship I have been shown in the case that I have mentioned previously that my client should award damages for his stress and disappointment.